rrt00004

Subversion, Sabotage and Destruction...U.S. Foreign Policy Since 1947

Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE

As World War II concluded, the United States emerged as the most powerful nation on the planet. The great Nazi evil had been slain and the world had been saved. But there were storm clouds on the horizon. The United States had allied itself with a bloodthirsty Soviet regime to defeat the Germans and the Truman Administration now concluded that our old comrades were now our new enemy.

In 1947, President Truman signed the National Security Act, a sweeping piece of legislation that gave birth to the National Security Council and the Central Intelligence Agency. These two agencies would serve as the primary tools to deal with the perceived communist threat that materialized following the end of World War II, and would mark a significant, fundamental shift in US foreign policy.

The war to be waged against the spread of communism would be different that those fought in the past. This was to be a covert war, cloaked in secrecy and justified in the name of national security. In order to prosecute this new war, the United States employed the services of an old enemy…the Nazis. In a rather unusual twist, Nazis were hired as spies to provide intelligence on our new enemy, the Soviets. The new war had begun.

In 1953 the Central Intelligence Agency engaged in its first major covert operation. Mohammad Mosaddegh was democratically elected as Iran’s Prime Minister in 1951. Rumors had surfaced that Mosaddegh was getting cozy with the communists. Accordingly, when Mosaddegh nationalized the Iranian oil industry in 1953, red flags went up in the United States. The British had controlled Iranian oil since 1913 through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, later to be named British Petroleum. On August 19,1953, the Central Intelligence Agency orchestrated a coup which overthrew Mohammed Mosaddegh and installed Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. The Shah provided the US with access to Iranian oil and spent billions on military hardware over the next 25 years.

The year 1954 proved to be a busy one for the new national security apparatus. Jacobo Arbenz Guzman, the democratically elected leader of Guatemala, was suspected of harboring communist sympathies. When he nationalized 1.5 million acres of Guatemalan land and redistributed it to the country’s peasants, alarm bells were set off in the United States. It seems the United Fruit Company, later to be known as Chiquita Brands International, owned a good portion of this nationalized land. To thwart the perceived communist threat, the Central Intelligence Agency overthrew Arbenz and installed Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas. The land was returned to the United Fruit Company and military dictators ruled the country for the next 30 years. Once again, the United States created a great market for military sales in order to repel the continuing communist threat. That same year, the Vietnamese won their independence from the French and the Central Intelligence Agency arrived to assure the communists, led by Ho Chi Minh, would not overtake the country. A puppet regime, led by Ngo Dinh Diem, was installed to halt the communist advance. This proved ineffective and the covert operation continued to expand.

On April 17, 1961, Cuban exiles trained by the CIA stormed the Southern Coast of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs in an effort to overthrow the communist government of Fidel Castro. President Kennedy did not follow-up the ground assault with US air support and the mission proved to be an embarrassing failure. There were, however, subsequent efforts to depose Castro. The CIA organized a small department known as “Executive Action”, whose task was to discredit and/or assassinate those who posed a perceived security risk to the United States. Members of the Mafia were recruited for this group and several unsuccessful attempts were made to assassinate Fidel Castro.

Back to Vietnam…President Kennedy deployed the Green Berets to assist with a deteriorating situation and by 1963 the United States had 15,000 Americans in Vietnam, deemed to be “advisors”. In 1964 President Johnson claimed that renewed hostile actions against United States ships in the Gulf of Tonkin had required a military response. Official documents released years later, along with witness testimony, now reveals that President Johnson’s statement was inaccurate. In 1965 American troops landed in South Vietnam to mark the beginning of a land war that would continue to escalate until U.S. involvement officially ended in 1973, as a result of the Case-Church Amendment passed by Congress.

In 1973, a covert operation was launched in Chile to overthrow President Salvador Allende; the 80’s brought us the covert action in Central America and the Iran-Contra scandal; the 90’s Iraq, ten years later Iraq part II, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya; and the hits just keep coming.

The United States has been involved in countless military interventions since 1947, both covert and overt; however, the Congress has not approved a single declaration of war. Regardless of one’s perception as to the prudence of American foreign policy since 1947, it runs counter to the non-interventionist principals laid out by Thomas Paine in his work “Common Sense” and Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution which grants Congress the power to declare war. Additionally, it fails to heed the advice of President Jefferson, given in his 1804 inaugural address regarding entangling alliances. Jefferson proclaimed the United States should have “peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”

Perhaps the most illuminating explanation for the shift in U.S. foreign policy since 1947 comes from The Doolittle Report of 1954. This report was sought and secured by President Eisenhower in July of 1954 to report on the CIA’s covert activities and make prudent recommendations. The report began with the following overview regarding the communist threat: “It is now clear that we are facing an implacable enemy whose avowed objective is world domination by whatever means and at whatever cost. There are no rules in such a game…if the United States is to survive, longstanding American concepts of “fair play” must be reconsidered. We must develop effective espionage and counterespionage services and must learn to subvert, sabotage and destroy our enemies by more clever, more sophisticated and more effective methods than those used against us. It may become necessary that the American people be made acquainted with, understand and support this fundamentally repugnant philosophy.”

United States foreign policy took a giant step away from it’s non-interventionist roots during the Wilson Administration, embracing the idea that the United States should be the conscience for the world and model for all other nations to emulate. By 1947 this idea of Wilsonian Democracy had become the foundation of U.S. foreign policy. The National Security Act enabled vast expansion of this philosophy, utilizing the communist threat as the rationale for deviation from the Constitution of the United States. It’s the same argument we hear today: When national security is at risk, we must take whatever steps are necessary to turn back these threats. In the past the threat was communism; today, it’s terrorism. Fear has been utilized as a motivating factor to convince the American people that they must be willing give up liberty in order to secure their safety. Once again, this rationale runs counter to the advice of our founders. Benjamin Franklin issued a rather stern warning that would behoove Americans to revisit today: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” If the United States continues down this road of sabotage, subversion and destruction, we shall surely receive that which we deserve.

In America, Anyone…But Ron Paul, Can Be President

When Americans speak of the things that differentiate the United States from other countries, inevitably, the old phrase “Anyone in the United States can be President” oftentimes floats to the surface. It’s a rather concise way of advising that the United States is a country that values the ideas and abilities of the individual regardless of their race, religion or social status. Oftentimes the “Anyone can be President” proclamation is made in conjunction with some version of the “Only in America, could…” adage, which is utilized to reinforce the position that anything is possible in the United States of America.

These are beliefs in which Americans take great pride. It makes everyone feel good and stimulates aspirations, hard work and perseverance. Unfortunately, these cherished beliefs, that have been passed down for generations and comprise the fabric of the United States of America, apparently aren’t true, according to the mainstream media. You see, one of the Republican candidates seeking his party’s nomination for President can’t win. Not only has virtually every talking head in the mainstream media indicated that Congressman Ron Paul couldn’t win his party’s nomination, but also a vast majority of the leaders in the Republican Party strongly agree…and they haven’t been shy to make their opinions known.  

So if the mainstream media and Republican Party both agree that it is impossible for Ron Paul to become President of the United States of America, who else can’t be President? I think it’s safe to say that I’m in the same car with Dr. Paul, along with a vast majority of the people in the country. Perhaps a better question is who can become President of the United States? Is there some type of path one follows to arrive in the “qualified” box? There must be some type of template or guideline that must be followed. Why else would the mainstream media and Republican Party leaders be so absolute in their contention that Ron Paul can’t be President?

Since the mainstream media and Republican Party have sought to educate the American people with regard to whom cannot be President of the United States, I feel it is incumbent upon them to explain the qualification process in a more detailed fashion. Eligibility regarding who can hold the office of President is specified in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. Since Dr. Paul satisfies the constitutional prerequisites for the presidency, I’m curious what additional requirements are necessary. Perhaps the true litmus test the mainstream media and Republican Party employ is maintaining the status quo with regard to the core issues of the day. Maybe it’s like select soccer, where the players for the team are actually selected weeks before the official try-outs are held, during a series of “open practices”. Children of parents, who don’t know the system, find themselves disappointed after try-outs.

I’ve been following American politics for more than 30 years and have never witnessed anything quite like what has transpired this year. When Dr. Paul wins a straw poll, its because his “people” are adept at manipulating the system. We’ve been told that he has a small cadre of hard-core activists that support him, but that he has a low ceiling of support. Accordingly, when his poll numbers started to elevate, the media ignored him, as he is, after all, irrelevant. Over the past three weeks, Congressman Paul’s poll numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire reached a level where the mainstream media could no longer pretend he doesn’t exist. So, rather than scrutinize his “radical” positions that make him unelectable, the mainstream media has chosen to revive an inflammatory issue from the past that has been addressed repeatedly in previous elections.

There was a time in this country when another phrase was embraced and reflected the value Americans placed on individual choice…”Let the best man win”. Given the position taken by the mainstream media and Republican Party with regard to who can’t win, I suppose we should deep six this adage as well. If one has to pass a litmus test regarding positions that are deemed acceptable to these wise overlords, many would have to be excluded. Personal character, integrity and adherence to principals are deemed meaningless if one strays outside the box of acceptable core positions regarding domestic and foreign policy. In effect, this is nothing more than a non-legislated regulation where the mainstream media and Republican Party act as the regulators. The American people are apparently incapable of rendering decisions on these matters, so like all good regulators, the mainstream media and Republican Party must act to protect the voters from themselves.

There’s an old George Carlin routine where he explains the American Dream. Carlin speaks about the “owners” of this country and how they depend on an uneducated, complacent population who drink the Kool Aid the mainstream media and politicians are serving. The “owners” fear an educated, well-informed people capable of critical thinking. It appears the mainstream media and Republican leadership belong to the same exclusive club, but we’re not in it…and neither is Dr. Paul.  

The Problem

Protection

I’ll never forget sitting in a meeting several years ago reviewing a situation where an investment client wanted to liquidate assets from a commission-based brokerage account and transfer the proceeds to a fee-based, managed account. It seems the “regulators” had an issue with this transaction, based on the fee that would be extracted from the investor on the commission side. Never mind that the individual investor was completely aware of the fees associated with this transaction and was adamant that his commission-based account be liquidated. The “regulators” had to protect him from himself. You see, the average citizen does not possess the knowledge and sophistication to interact with those in the investment business. Accordingly, the individual must rely on the wisdom of the collective.

This is a perfect example of how far this country has strayed. We allow the government to dictate terms on how we live our lives and accept the premise that they’re doing this to protect us. The American people have bought into the notion that, but for the “regulators”, the free market would empower the strong to take advantage of the weak. Accordingly, regulation is necessary to protect us from others and from ourselves. If the State didn’t regulate, chaos would surely ensue.

So we go about our business everyday, confident that there is a safety net of regulation to protect us, should we ever find ourselves in trouble. You see, this is a complicated world and most people could never survive without this protection. This false sense of security has led Americans to accept a plethora of regulations that fly in the face of individual liberty and personal responsibility. Investors are told what they can and can’t do with their money, employers are instructed as to how much to pay their employees, homeowners are advised how much water can run through their toilets and everyone is instructed how to cough, sneeze, blow their noses and wash their hands.

Remember Swine Flu? It was later referenced as H1N1 to accommodate the pork industry. We were led to believe that this demonic virus was poised to wreak havoc on this nation, resulting in a massive wave of death and destruction.  Accordingly, there were calls for mandatory vaccines and all citizens had to be educated on the proper way to cough. You see, coughing into one’s hand is bad, as germs are then transmitted easily. The trick is to cough into one’s bent elbow, where all germs magically disappear. We had the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, providing a demonstration of proper coughing technique and the CDC sent out handy instructional posters for display in restrooms throughout the country.

Why do we accept this? Have we fallen so far that we are now prepared to exchange individual freedom for the promise of protection. Do we really believe the collective possesses greater wisdom and compassion than the individual? The American people have become nothing more than cattle, content to obey the rules of the State, so long as they have food, clothing, shelter and cable television. History has taught us that tyranny doesn’t flower overnight. The seeds are planted and growth is fostered by a series of small incremental steps. The strength of the State grows as individual liberty is diminished. At what point do the cattle offer resistance? When they’re being loaded to the cattle cars on their way to the slaughter house?

The Tapp Income Paradigm

I’ve always been amused by those that go to great lengths to disassociate themselves from any connection with money as a motivating factor in job selection. As a youngster, I recall hearing some of my teachers at the government school proclaim “I love my job so much I’d do it even if I wasn’t paid.” Of course this message was always forgotten each year when the school board met to configure a budget which allocated salary increases for teachers. It was at that time taxpayers were reminded of the value our teachers deliver to society and how significantly underpaid they are relative to the other less important members of the community. The new message became: “If we want to attract good folks to teach our children, the taxpayers need to make sure our teachers are compensated at a level competitive with other occupations.”

We live in a society where the message “money doesn’t bring happiness”, is drummed into the have-nots psyche at a very early age. The idea seems to be to condition people to be satisfied with less. Not a bad strategy. I mean, if the choices are money or happiness, most choose happiness…right? But is happiness always easy to quantify? Perhaps the “money doesn’t bring happiness” mantra is best countered by something I once heard the late Senator Lloyd Bentsen say regarding this subject. Senator Bentsen was relating a story of his grandmother and her take on the whole money/happiness dynamic. Her modification to this accepted truth was: “While money isn’t the key to happiness…with enough money, one can have their own key made.”

This brings me to a situation I encountered while working for a small investment firm a few years ago. I was analyzing the salaries of the employees in my group and noticed a rather troubling situation. There was not a very strong correlation to performance and compensation. Additionally, newer employees tended to be compensated at a higher level than their longer tenured counterparts. While I’m no advocate of basing compensation on seniority, I’m certainly no fan of compensating a new employee at a higher level than another who has performed well in the exact same position for a couple of years.

The problem with the compensation levels of my staff was that the salary matrix designed by our friends in Human Resources had not kept place with the employment market. My solution was very simple. Adjust salaries of the 13 employees in my group to rectify this inequity. From my perspective, this was important for two reasons. The first, being it was simply the right thing to do and secondarily if we didn’t make the necessary corrections, the market would make them for us. The end result would be unnecessary turnover, which is expensive on many levels.

Unfortunately, what seemed to be a rather sophomoric concept to me, proved alien to our Director of Human Resources and CEO. I was advised that my suggestion would be much too expensive to implement and that our competitors formulated their employee compensation policies in exactly the same way. My position that the company logic was faulty went over like a fart in church. Accordingly, a short time later, I was summoned to a meeting to discuss my heresy. During the meeting I was advised that employees were more concerned with the quality of the overall work experience, than their compensation level. The employees at our firm enjoyed their work; therefore, they would have no reason to seek employment elsewhere, for even a moderate salary increase. To bolster this position, I was presented with statistics from exit interviews conducted by Human Resources over the past 3 years. Their data showed that less than 5 percent of all employees that had departed the firm had done so due to monetary considerations. I called bullshit on that and introduced my colleagues to the Tapp Income Paradigm.

The Tapp Income Paradigm simply says that one’s income level has a monumental role in the decision making process when one decides to depart their current employer for additional compensation at another employer. Here’s an example. Joe earns a salary of $300k annually. He loves his job and is economically comfortable. Should Joe receive an opportunity to work for another firm where he would receive an annual salary bump of $50k, but knows he wouldn’t enjoy his new job, Joe will opt to stay with his current employer. Contrast that with Sam’s situation. Sam earns $45k/year and also loves his job. Unlike Joe, however, Sam is not comfortable economically. He has two children that both want to play club soccer, but Sam can’t afford to pay the lofty club dues. Sam receives an offer from a competing firm with a $6k annual salary increase, but knows he will not be happy in the new position. Sam takes the job to satisfy his economic needs.

When our meeting concluded I was advised to drink the company kool-aid and be a good boy. I opted to put my money where my mouth was and seek employment elsewhere. In my new position I visit with a number of corporate types who verify that my old firm’s compensation philosophy is pervasive across most industry groups. Perhaps that helps explain why people change jobs much more frequently now that they did in the past. My father worked for the same employer for over 30 years, and that wasn’t uncommon back in those days. Good employees were retained and nurtured. It was a different time, and I would argue that it would behoove companies to step back and revisit the wisdom of the past.

God Save The United Way

Every year a contingent from the United Way fans out across the country, spreading their gospel of giving. They target businesses large and small to enlist their employees participate in this charitable endeavor. Usually there’s a speaker who relates a rather dramatic story regarding how their life would have been lost, but for the unwavering support from the United Way. This saga usually elicits tears from the audience and serves to loosen tight purse-strings.

Large companies love for their employees to contribute to this mammoth charitable organization and make it exceedingly easy to transfer payments. Some companies gently pressure employees to join the United Way bandwagon, while others rely on incentives. I’ve witnessed both and am a fan of neither.

This year when the United Way came calling on my employer, I received a bit of the gentle pressure referenced above. Unlike previous years, when I experienced varying degrees of discomfort, this year was different. For once I viewed this annual beat-down for what it really was…an opportunity. So when my colleagues solicited my support, I gladly refused. And then I proceeded to explain why.

I prefaced all of my comments with a declaration of commitment to and belief in assisting my fellow man. That’s not to say that I believe everyone should be required to assist one’s fellow man, I most certainly do not. I hold that the individual should be free to make their own decision with regard to any form of charitable giving. Accordingly, forcing one to transfer their money to another deemed to be in greater need of said funds is, from my perspective, nothing more than theft. It matters not, if the enforcer is a petty criminal, sophisticated thief, or the federal government. I simply choose to assist my fellow man. It is my choice and mine alone.

This brings me to the problem with my charitable contribution to the United Way. I explained to my co-workers that the federal government had pro-actively taken my charitable contribution in the form of a confiscatory personal income tax. The monetary amount and recipients had been pre-selected by those more wise than I. In effect, I had given at the office. So when the United Way reached out to collect some bread for the hungry, my cupboard was bare.

Imagine a scenario where a fellow is mugged on his way to the office and has his wallet stolen. All that this poor guy has left are the clothes on his back and $50 he kept hidden in his shoe. Who in the office would ask him to share his remaining stash of cash? Isn’t this exactly what companies do when they solicit charitable giving from employees to the United Way?

And here’s another question. Why is there such a tremendous need for charitable organizations like the United Way, when the federal, state and local governments are spending over $760 Billion on welfare benefits and another $1.1 trillion on health care to assist our fellow man? In fact, everyone’s giving at the office. This is not a message my friends at the United Way enjoy hearing. But there is good news and bad news. The good news is that most people don’t understand that they’ve given at the office…The bad news is that as tax rates rise to support our welfare/warfare state, there won’t be much left for the good folks at the United Way.

Perhaps one day the people of this country will awaken from their slumber and realize the emperor has no clothes. That the tax money our government redistributes is if fact, theirs, not those in the executive and legislative branches of government. This awakening would be a boon for the United Way and other charitable organizations. If we don’t awaken and start traveling down this path, we’ll go to our mailboxes a few years from now to find correspondence from the United Way and every other charitable organization known to man, requesting donations to save their beleaguered organizations.

Regulate This...

I never cease to be amazed with the American people’s faith in government regulation. Business must be regulated to protect the consumer, and personal behavior must be regulated to protect everyone from the actions of others as well as themselves. It’s accepted as a universal truth…Regulations are necessary too assure fair treatment for all.  

I was sitting in a meeting this past week when the subject of property/casualty insurance rates reared its ugly head. One of the participants was relating a story of one of his clients that had witnessed a rather large elevation in their insurance premium at renewal time. The speaker went on to advise that this was a result of a recent decision by the Texas Department of Insurance, to grant the insurance company in question a huge rate increase. The conversation then focused on the horrible decision rendered by the regulator and how a more reasonable rate increase should have been authorized.  

My take on this topic was a bit different. I asked the group whether anyone found it just a little odd that a state governmental body dictates the amount a private company can charge for the service it provides. Well, I was told in a most aggressive manner that if the government didn’t regulate the rates insurance companies charge the consumer, these greedy companies would surely gouge the public with exorbitant rates that most consumers could not afford. Most folks would be uninsured, children would be in the streets eating worms and the world would most likely end in a most abrupt manner.

Perhaps a little logical thought might be of great assistance with regard to this situation. Let’s assume insurance company A does exactly as my friends suggested, and elevated their rates to levels most folks simply could not afford. What would prevent these disenfranchised people from purchasing their insurance coverage from Company B? Oh, but you see, if there was no regulation of these evil insurance companies, they would collude with their competitors to elevate all rates, thereby increasing their profits at the expense of the defenseless consumer. Really?  So how would these companies capture these criminal profits if most consumers could not afford the lofty rates? Would not these sinister insurance companies price themselves right out of business?

Here’s a more likely scenario. Absent regulatory guidance, a small number of property/casualty insurance companies might likely collude to elevate rates to the apex of the “Laffer Curve”, if you will. The problem with this situation isn’t absence of regulation, its barriers to entry. Where no barriers to entry exist, competition regulates prices. If the small group of insurance companies price their product above the natural market rate, new companies would enter the marketplace and exploit the fat profit margins enjoyed by the original companies. Insurance rates would reach equilibrium and consumers would be provided property/casualty insurance at a fair price.

The theory of governmental regulation is built upon the foundation of a comprehensive lack of confidence in the consumer to act in their best interest. It’s marketed and sold as a protection mechanism for the consumer whom doesn’t stand a chance dueling with big business. In reality, regulation serves to protect big business at the expense of their smaller competitors and the consumer. Barriers to entry are created to protect large companies and regulations serve to elevate operating costs so that any small business fortunate enough to scale the lofty barriers, cannot compete with their big business counterparts.

Unfortunately, the American people have been drinking the progressive kool-aid for so many years that they have become intoxicated with ignorance. Regulation is seen as their salvation, the only hope of preventing big business from going on a massive tear of predatory pricing that would reduce the consumer to nothing more than a ward of the state. Ironically, that’s exactly the direction we move as regulations are enacted and increased. Government regulation is nothing more than a corporate welfare program funded by the taxpayer.

The free market is the only true regulator that benefits both the competitor and consumer. Perhaps one day the stars will align, the kool-aid will sour and the American people will dry out. Until that time arrives, the consumer, taxpayer and small business will be operating at the mercy of large companies who are insulated from competitive forces by a mammoth federal assistance program known as governmental regulation.

The Terrorist Trap

I continue to be perplexed by the behavior of the Islamic terrorists whom we are told, are hell-bent on destroying the United States of America and everything good in the world. Think about it…On September 11, 2001 a group of these terrorists engineered the most deadly attack on the US mainland in our country’s history. The act allegedly took years to plan and unfortunately was extremely successful. In addition to the immediate shock factor, loss of life and economic disruption, the United States has materially altered security policies in virtually every area of our lives. These terrorists would seem to be a pretty resourceful, smart and sophisticated lot. Assuming this is an accurate depiction, think about the following questions:

1)     Wouldn’t it have made sense to hit the United States again shortly after 9/11?

2)     How difficult would it have been for a lone terrorist to have executed a suicide bombing mission at a crowded shopping mall?

3)     What would have been the impact on American shoppers?

4)     What would the impact have been to the US economy?

5)     Is there really any way to prevent such an attack?

6)     Why is nobody raising these questions?

I have thought about these questions ad nauseam and have been unable to reconcile the inconsistency. It just doesn’t make sense. If a terrorist organization is dedicated to the destruction of a nation, it would seem inconceivable that that group would be satisfied with one monumental attack. There are simply too many easy opportunities to wreak havoc on the United States.

The tragedy that occurred on September 11th is being utilized as an excuse to strip away our personal freedom and anyone who raises questions is deemed to be a terrorist sympathizer. The government schools have done a masterful job producing a nation of lemmings that spend their time glued to the television to find out which star has some remote ability to dance, babble or enlighten us with some tired message of universal love for one’s fellow man.

At some point we have to draw a line in the sand and say, “no more”. I only hope that line is drawn before the gates of freedom have been locked and the keys taken by our wise overlords who reserve the right to tell us all what to think and how to live. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

A Matter of Legality

Last Thursday I visited my bank to withdraw some funds from my personal checking account. To be exact, one hundred fifty dollars for a belated graduation gift to the child of some dear friends. While I rarely utilize cash for transactions, it was necessary in this case as the funds were to be exchanged for American Eagle Silver Dollars. Leonard, our coin dealer, is a bit of a stickler for transacting his business in cash. So I departed the bank and headed to see Leonard to make the purchase of the aforementioned coins. In route, I realized that I had left my mobile phone in my office, so I deviated off course to retrieve my phone.

When I arrived to my office, several members of the staff were gathered around talking about the unfortunate news that had been received by Leslie, one of our Administrative Assistants. It seems Leslie's wonderful husband had abandoned her and their three small children, feeling compelled to withdraw all the funds from their joint checking account prior to departing for parts unknown. Leslie was devastated by this random act of abandonment and was being consoled by Jim, the CEO of our firm. The sadness swept through our office like tidal wave.

I finally made my way up the stairs to my office, laid the $150 on my desk, and began searching for my mobile phone. I could hear Leslie sobbing in the adjacent office and felt tremendous sympathy for her as I raised a pile of paperwork, hoping to locate my elusive phone. It was at that time I remembered stopping off in John's office downstairs prior to exiting for the bank earlier that day. So I bolted down the stairs and entered John's office hoping to locate my phone. John was on the telephone, but smiled broadly as I slipped through the doorway, pointing to his filing cabinet on the north wall. Sitting atop the old gray metal cabinet was my iphone. I smiled and nodded as I exited John's office and tracked my way upstairs to retrieve my cash and head to Leonard's to purchase the silver dollars.

As I approached my desk I immediately noticed my money was missing. I felt in my trouser pockets and jacket to ascertain if I had unknowingly placed it there and just not realized doing so because of the chaotic events swirling around the office. I could hear Leslie thanking Jim repeatedly in the adjacent office as I proceeded to go through the same search process I had completed just a few moments earlier with my mobile phone.  I was a bit perplexed at the alteration in Leslie’s demeanor, but very happy her sobbing had been replaced by what could only be described as joy.

After completing a comprehensive search of my office, I had decided that someone must have hidden my cash as a joke. Accordingly, I exited my office and floated through the hallway to retrieve my money. As I turned the corner to head toward the break room, I bumped into Jim. I told him about the mysterious disappearing funds and my suspicion of some office tom foolery. Jim grinned and advised that he had taken the money off my desk to give to Leslie. He went on to explain that the office had taken a collection of funds and presented them to her just a few minutes prior. At first I thought he was joking, but as he explained the situation in greater detail, I realized this was no office prank.  

I was completely taken aback by this behavior and asked Jim to return my money. Jim indicated it was too late for that, and questioned why I would have a problem helping out one of our co-workers that was so blatantly in need. As I continued to demand the return of my funds, Jim expanded on his rationale for giving these funds to Leslie. First, I made a great deal more money than she and second, Leslie had a greater need for the funds than did I.  He was perplexed by my insensitivity for Leslie and her children, indicating that he found my greed nauseating.

Finally I realized that my money would not be returned under any circumstance. I marched into my office, dialed the Police and reported the theft of my $150. The Police arrived approximately 15 minutes later and summoned me downstairs where I filed a complaint. Jim was asked to join us in the conference room where we had a very open and lively conversation regarding the events that had transpired. After the Officers were illuminated with the facts, they both turned to me and asked why I was asking for the money to be returned.  Leslie had just gone through such a traumatic experience, and she was quite obviously in need of assistance. They indicated that Jim had acted with compassion and questioned my motives for elevating the incident to this level. For the next 10 minutes I was given a lesson on the virtue of community service and charity. Property rights were irrelevant, as it was my responsibility to assist my fellow man. If others carried on as did I, this country would fall apart.

The Officers departed only after providing me with a stern warning that if I raised this issue again I’d be cited for inciting a disturbance and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  I was again reminded of my elevated income level and the corresponding responsibility I had to those that were less fortunate than me.  

As I sat at my desk and viewed the wave of nasty emails hit my inbox as the story circulated throughout the office, it all became clear. This situation was no different than our oppressive tax code. The theft and re-distribution of my wealth to someone deemed needier than myself was exactly what the federal government does with the personal income tax. Jim was the Treasury, the Police were the IRS, Leslie was the welfare state, and I was taxpayer. The only difference in the actions of a thief and the federal government is simply a matter of legality.

Manipulation Overdrive

A few weeks ago I prepared a presentation addressing how the main stream media crafts headlines to cultivate the opinions of the American people. In order to vividly illustrate my point, I selected a prominent news story and printed the headlines from several of the most popular main stream media outlets. The level of creativity witnessed was truly amazing. Although the contents of each story were virtually the same, the headlines created a much different impression. Those folks simply perusing the headlines could have formulated an opinion that was in conflict with the actual facts presented in the full body of the story.

On Thursday, Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations with remarks that the US delegation found so distasteful, they departed in protest. Ahmadinejad's reference to 911 conspiracy theories were simply too much for delegates from the US and some other nations to digest. As this event unfolded, all the major news agencies started to trumpet this story. On Friday, Eric Shawn with Fox News sat down with the Iranian President to explore a variety of topics, most notably, the inflammatory 911 comments that had garnered so much media attention. I have attached two clips from Fox News to illustrate how the media develops a news story to formulate opinion. The first was released shortly after the Shawn interview was completed and the second clip hit the airways following more extensive editing.

Review these two segments and pay attention to the way Eric Shawn characterizes Ahmadinejad's 911 comments initially. He advises that Ahmadinejad "raised the issue of whether or not the US Government was behind the horrible terrorist attacks". In the second clip which was aired later, Shawn is much more direct. Shawn indicates that Ahmadinejad, in his address to the UN General Assembly said that "the US Government was behind 911, or could have been". Also, notice the confrontational tone that is taken by Shawn from the outset of the interview and the editing that takes place from clip one to clip two.

My interest here has nothing to do with the incendiary topic being discussed, but merely the process utilized to deliver news to the American people. I find it fascinating and alarming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNjZICZ8a5E&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcbgt2EGUJI

The Bazooka Next Door

Everything in the world was right, until “they” moved into the neighborhood. Ed, the patriarch of the family, had sold a software company in Colorado and moved his wife, Myra, and their 3 children to our North Dallas neighborhood about 6 months ago. Within 10 minutes of their arrival to our little slice of Americana, it was alarmingly clear that this was not going to be pleasant. It seems Ed was annoyed by the presence of a couple of the neighborhood children standing on his front lawn watching the parade of household items stream into the new home. To rectify this inexcusable invasion of privacy, Ed strolled out to the front lawn and greeted the lads by pouring maple syrup over their heads as he bellowed loudly with laughter in his deep, somewhat creepy, Herman Muenster tone. To say this act did not go over well with the neighbors would be a comprehensive understatement.

Over the coming weeks, a seemingly endless stream of bizarre behavior emanated from Ed’s home. Cleaning wild game in the front yard, walking the family pet Spider Monkey around the neighborhood and dancing the lambada with wife, Myra, out front by the mailbox while the Brazilian beat filtered through the neighborhood.

As word began to spread to all the neighbors, a call came out for Bill Matthews, head of the neighborhood association, to pay Ed a visit. Bill was a rather large imposing retired Marine Colonel, who experienced no difficulty with clarity when delivering a message. And so it was, big Bill paid a visit on Ed one pleasant Saturday morning. Bill found Ed out front, working with a remote controlled airplane. The conversation started poorly and deteriorated from there. It was toward the end of this exchange where Ed advised Bill that if he did not exit his property post haste, he would retrieve a bazooka from his home and terminate the meeting in a most unpleasant manner. Bill departed abruptly with a flurry of choice words directed to Ed. On his way across the street, Bill called the Dallas Police to advise of the verbal altercation and revelation that Ed was harboring a bazooka in his home.

The Dallas Police arrived at Ed’s home and inquired about the aforementioned bazooka. Ed forcefully denied that he possessed said bazooka and indicated that he mentioned this to Bill only because Bill had threatened him with violence. Ed allowed the Officers to enter his home and look around. They left laughing and joking with Ed, much to the displeasure of Bill who had been monitoring the situation with binoculars from his upstairs bedroom.

The next day Bill called an emergency meeting of the neighborhood association and outlined the case against Ed. There could be no doubt that Ed possessed a bazooka, and God knows what else. Since the Police had failed miserably, Bill called on the association to step up and rectify this situation before Ed had the opportunity to harm someone. The association was unified in their opinion that Ed was indeed a threat to the neighborhood, but couldn’t agree on the response to deal with this threat. Bill was not pleased with the association’s inability to reach a consensus and he warned that decisive action had to be taken immediately for the safety and security of every man, woman and child in the neighborhood.

On the morning of April 23, Bill Matthews strapped on his 45 automatic and walked across the street to Ed’s home. He rang the bell and when Ed opened the door, Bill stepped inside, drew his pistol and demanded to see the bazooka. A total of 7 shots were heard ringing throughout the neighborhood. Approximately 10 minutes later, Bill Matthews exited Ed’s residence and stood out by the mailbox to await arrival of the Dallas Police, whom he had called after the altercation.

Inside Ed’s home, Police found the dead bodies of Ed, Myra and their 3 children. What they didn’t find, was the bazooka. As a matter of fact, there were no firearms in the house. And so the Marine Colonel found himself sitting in jail with 5 counts of murder hanging over his head.

Bill plead not guilty. He maintained that as the President of the neighborhood association, he had both the right and responsibility to secure the safety of everyone in the neighborhood. Bill knew that Ed had a bazooka. He had obviously moved it out of the house prior to Bill’s visit on April 23. Based on Ed’s erratic behavior, it was simply a matter of time before that bazooka would have been utilized against those in the neighborhood. Accordingly, Bill advised he had every right to enter Ed’s home to search for the bazooka. When Ed and his family confronted him with violent resistance, Bill maintained he had no choice but to defend himself. Even if there never was a bazooka, Ed and his family were dangerous. They exhibited bizarre behavior and it was only a matter of time before they harmed someone in the neighborhood. The neighborhood was a better place without Ed’s family and Bill maintained that the Dallas Police should be thanking him for doing the job they were unable to complete.

During the trial, Bill’s Attorney argued that the threat to the neighborhood outweighed any individual rights possessed by Ed and his family. “There are times”, he exclaimed, “when personal liberty must be restricted, so that the collective can be protected.” This argument seemed eerily familiar, but no more powerful than when it was employed by an American President, hell bent on going to war.

Progress?

Over the past couple of years it has become uncomfortably clear to me that something is seriously wrong in America. The current economic downturn is merely the latest symptom of a protracted illness that has incrementally permeated our economy over time. Perhaps the most disconcerting aspect of this economic atrophy is the widespread apathy displayed by the American people. This really shouldn’t be surprising however, given the dramatic lifestyle transformation that has occurred over the past 40 years. Americans today are preoccupied with making their economic ends meet in an economy focused on excessive consumption, intellectual sloth and hedonistic escapism.

We are all conditioned to believe that our standard of living has expanded greatly; and who could question that, given the advancements we have seen in the areas of technology and medicine. It’s difficult to imagine life without a personal computer or mobile phone, and I’d certainly prefer having heart surgery today, rather than 40 years ago. But are we really better off today than we were? Consider the fact that a dollar in 2008 was worth only sixteen cents when compared to a dollar in 1968. The ramifications of this debasement have proven profound and I challenge you to ponder the examples I site below and ask yourself by what definition this represents progress.

In the late 60’s, when I was in the first grade, my family lived in Wichita Falls, Texas. My father was a Route Supervisor for a bread company and my mother stayed home and cared for me and my two older sisters. We lived in a comfortable 3 bedroom 2 bath home with a double car garage, in a nice neighborhood. My mother prepared all of our meals and on rare occasions the family would dine out at a restaurant, or most likely, a cafeteria. Our family was economically secure with the income derived from my father’s employment. My parents didn’t possess a credit card, so all of the family’s expenditures came from my father’s salary or the bank savings account. Can you imagine a fellow today, employed in the same capacity as my father, supporting a family of 4 comfortably? It’s simply not possible. That family today would struggle to live comfortably with both parents working and a mountain of debt.

Today healthcare costs are a serious economic challenge for most families. Insurance premiums for medical and dental coverage are lofty and the additional out-of-pocket costs associated with treatment under the insurance plans usually finds its way onto a credit card. This scenario lies in stark contrast to my family’s experience some 40 years ago. Each year my mother would load the children in the family Oldsmobile and travel to our Dentist in Ft Worth for a visit. The Dentist would examine all 4 of us and perform any dental work necessary. Upon completion, my mother would remove her checkbook and provide payment to the Dentist for the services rendered. Like many families in those days, my parents didn’t possess dental insurance. Try to imagine that same scenario today. Once again, it’s simply not possible for a family modeled after mine in the late 60’s to routinely fund dental work for 4 without assistance from dental insurance, a credit card, or, more likely both.

My parents and those in the late 60’s possessed more freedom than do their contemporaries today. Economic security perpetuates freedom; Freedom to decide who raises one’s children, how they’re nurtured, and who provides for their medical/dental treatment. As economic security erodes, so too does freedom. We have experienced a slow, methodical usurpation of freedom in this country and most Americans don’t even realize what has transpired. Much like a wise thief that incrementally removes a slice of ham from another’s refrigerator over a protracted period of time. One day the unsuspecting homeowner opens his refrigerator and is perplexed to discover his ham is gone.  

As the purchasing power of the dollar has declined, Americans have faced some difficult decisions regarding their lifestyle. Many families concluded that it was necessary for both parents to work outside the home in order to make their economic ends meet. Accordingly, daycare facilities emerged across the country to care for the displaced children. A plethora of restaurants sprang up to feed the families who no longer had the time to prepare meals at home, and, as savings evaporated, credit cards arrived to supply the necessary leverage to keep this devolutionary process moving full speed ahead.

So what are the ramifications of this economic transformation to which I refer? Generations of children being reared by someone who’s value system is often diametrically opposed to that of the parents; A steady diet of processed foods that contain enough chemicals to make a drug dealer blush; and a mountain of debt sufficient to place many families into indentured servitude with those wonderful credit card companies. Americans have become slaves to debt and systematically forfeited much of their freedom. In 1968, my parents had the freedom to choose who reared their children, who prepared their meals and who provided their healthcare and dental care. Today most families don’t.

Americans would be well served to wake up and stop believing the pontifications of their wise overlords, who trumpet our progress without acknowledging the emasculation of our freedoms detailed above. Perhaps it would behoove us to ask some tough questions about the road we are traveling before we awaken one day to find our country has been incrementally dissembled while we slept.